I'd like to see how peoples' answers will differ if the goal in question is slightly less ambitious: dual-communion between the Melkite Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, as proposed by the Zoghby Initiative. (If you choose a different answer here than you did on the other poll, please tell us about it.)

The Zoghby initiative is nonsensical- I don't see how it coul be the basis of anything.

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.

The Constantinople Bishop Kallistos Ware of Oxford has a booklet "Communion ands Intercommunion" which explains the theological basis of the Orthodox inability to accept the concept of "intercommunion." It is published by the Anglican Sisters of the Love of God, Oxford.

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy), and otherwise, it will never happen.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.

The Vatican has approved intercommunion of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church.

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy), and otherwise, it will never happen.

Intercommunion already happens, but I'm talking about "dual communion" in the sense that the Melkite Catholic Church, while continuing to be in full communion with the Vatican, would simultaneously be in full communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy), and otherwise, it will never happen.

Intercommunion already happens, but I'm talking about "dual communion" in the sense that the Melkite Catholic Church, while continuing to be in full communion with the Vatican, would simultaneously be in full communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Such a restricted version of communion would be impossible since every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

Yes, there are anomalies in what Antioch does in practice and the effect is that it may be seen as being in in communion with the Pope as Supreme Authority in the Melkite Church (CCEO 43.)

Perhaps this will be addressed if the forthcoming All-Orthodox Council ever takes place?

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.

The Vatican has approved intercommunion of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church.

Right. I know on our end we are less strict in terms of who we commune, but I was thinking of RC-EO intercommunion, and I was thinking of a situation where both Communions agree to intercommunion. My Church already allows EO to commune, but to me intercommunion means that both sides agree to commune one another.

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy)

It also amounts to a rejection of Orthodoxy. It's silly position which has more to do with indifference and ignorance than anything else.

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

Of course, the Melkite Church is free to break communion with Rome and join with their Syriac brethen. However, that is not "dual communion" as described by the OP, but the Melkites rejecting the heterodoxy of Rome and returning to the Church.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.

The Vatican has approved intercommunion of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church.

Right. I know on our end we are less strict in terms of who we commune, but I was thinking of RC-EO intercommunion, and I was thinking of a situation where both Communions agree to intercommunion. My Church already allows EO to commune, but to me intercommunion means that both sides agree to commune one another.

If I remember correctly, the agreement between the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East is pretty symmetrical.

No it is not on the horizon. Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion". A totally false claim.

Yes, I do recall that. But as I understand it, it was pretty innocent -- a matter of misunderstanding without intention to deceive.

Doesn't really pertain to my question anyhow.

In what way was it innocent? A story was made up about the EP saying in an interview that he agreed to "dual communion" between Eastern catholics and Orthodox. He did not say this. There is no record of his saying this in print and the EP denied he ever said it.

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy)

It also amounts to a rejection of Orthodoxy. It's silly position which has more to do with indifference and ignorance than anything else.

If that were true, they would have bowed to Mecca a millenium ago: Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was ) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome. We are rather indifferent to their ignorant one upmanship. On the questions of belief, we side with Orthodoxy, which isnt' the same as siding with New Rome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was ) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.

The Melkites are in communion with Old Rome and with its heresies, even if they don't vocally profess them. I think you're mistaking duplicity with resistance. Rejecting the Vatican heresies has nothing to do with "squabbles of Old and New Rome". The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 03:06:37 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.

I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.

I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Then why are they in communion with Rome?

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.

I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Then why are they in communion with Rome?

As far as they are concerned, they are in communion with Antioch.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No it is not on the horizon. Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion". A totally false claim.

Yes, I do recall that. But as I understand it, it was pretty innocent -- a matter of misunderstanding without intention to deceive.

Doesn't really pertain to my question anyhow.

In what way was it innocent? A story was made up about the EP saying in an interview that he agreed to "dual communion" between Eastern catholics and Orthodox. He did not say this. There is no record of his saying this in print and the EP denied he ever said it.

My memory is a little rusty on the details, so I went looking to see what I said about it at the time:

06-20-2008 (the day after the Catholic World News article Orthodox leader suggests "dual unity" for Eastern Catholics)

Quote

Have any of you seen the text of the actual interview? I'd very much like to read it (even if only an automatic translation from German).

06-21-2008

Quote

Something I was just thinking: RISU and CWNews are well-known, reputable news sources. But I've never heard of this German ecumenical journal called "Cyril and Methodius".

I don't doubt that it exists, but is it a reputable journal? Is it possible that "Cyril and Methodius" printed a fictional interview? Seems unlikely, but I can't rule it out.

06-21-2008

Quote

You know ... I'm starting to think this will turn out to be pretty simple. Namely, that the EP was simply saying that, relatively speaking, we are closer to seeing a "dual communion" situation than we are to seeing full communion between Rome and Constantinople. (That doesn't in any way imply that the EP thinks "dual communion" can happen now.)

(I also posted a message on 06-22-2008, but just to say that the text of the interview didn't appear to be available online.)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

When comes to the words of Patriarch Bartolomeo I trust him, not your biased religious subjective Catholic news agencies like RISU or AsiaNews.

On the 5th of July 2008, the Ecumenical Patriarchate clearly denied the claims in question (see below). That absolutely settled the question for me. (How could it not?) It was only during those 2 weeks or so in between the Catholic World News article and the EP's press release that I thought the claim had merit. (And, in fact, if you read the quotes above, you'll see that even on June 21 I was "starting to think" that the claim was wrong. But that's beside the point.)

So I too would say that "When comes to the words of Patriarch Bartolomeo I trust him".

Quote

PRESS RELEASE

With respect to the recently published articles reporting that allegedly His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew believes that it is possible for the Greek Catholics (Uniates) to have a “double union”, in other words, full communion with Rome as well as with Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate refutes this inaccurate statement and affirms it was never made. The Ecumenical Patriarchate repeats its position that full union in faith is a prerequisite for sacramental communion.

At the Patriarchate, the 5th of July 2008From the Chief Secretariat of the Holy Synod

The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.

I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Then why are they in communion with Rome?

Not agreeing with something isn't the same as saying "That's heresy. We can't be in full communion with anyone who believes that."

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 09:36:11 AM by Iconodule »

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of co-existence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of co-existence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchs, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome. This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Of course this confused situation simply could not form the basis of any unity with the Orthodox Church.

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of co-existence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchs, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome. This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Yes, it speaks to a mood of nonsensical relativism and a thirst for unity above truth in the Vatican, and also the dishonesty of the Melkites. I can, of course, agree with the Melkites' rejection of these doctrines, but I can't respect their position as long as they remain in communion with Rome.

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".

When he wishes to enter the Church we should have opinions on his imagination creations.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

It is the case when anything is proclaimed dogma, by anyone. To say it is dogma is to say "everyone must believe this; whoever rejects this is anathema." It's impossible to co-exist in a Church with someone who proclaims a false dogma- you can't say, "oh, that's just his opinion" because he will demand that you believe it and threaten anathema if you don't. And it is impossible to enter communion with such a person until he renounces his dogma.

If Papal Infallibility or supremacy become optional, they in fact become nonsensical as well. The Pope can't be supreme universal pastor, except where he's not. He can't make a statement that's infallible except where it's not considered infallible.

Logged

Quote

“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".

I don't think anyone means to suggest that everything the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury proclaim as dogma must be heresy. Some of it may be true, and some it may be a thelogumenon (sp?). However, when the Pope declares he is infallible (even in limited situations) that must be either true or untrue. There is no middle ground there, you must either accept it is true, or you must deny it as heresy. Likewise for the Pope's claim of universal jurisdiction.

As well, I would point out that it is impossible to be in communion with someone claiming as dogma (something that all must believe) what you hold as untrue, if not heresy.

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".

I don't think anyone means to suggest that everything the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury proclaim as dogma must be heresy. Some of it may be true, and some it may be a thelogumenon (sp?). However, when the Pope declares he is infallible (even in limited situations) that must be either true or untrue. There is no middle ground there, you must either accept it is true, or you must deny it as heresy. Likewise for the Pope's claim of universal jurisdiction.

As well, I would point out that it is impossible to be in communion with someone claiming as dogma (something that all must believe) what you hold as untrue, if not heresy.

I have found, on this board and elsewhere, that Orthodox believers do not hold precisely the same truths to be self-evident. It is also clear that from Orthodox jurisdiction to Orthodox jurisdiction, some pretty important defining teachings do differ.

How does this fit within the definition of "shared faith"?...particularly with your assertion that there is no so-called middle ground?

Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?

Toll houses is one such issue and various positions concerning the particular/partial judgment. Some say that once you die your fate is sealed. Others say things could change.

Some say that holy orders is eternal. Other protest not.

There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.

There's a fair amount of variety among those who think there is actual primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy and there are others who go in the opposite direct making Orthodox primates some very over-priced tie breakers...which also means that Orthodoxy is a democracy where majority rules...others say not so much

There are others things, but these few things are not lightweight issues...So I guess it's ok if you are in communion with one another to have these differences in faith...but if you are not in communion now, then everything has to be perfect prior to establishing communion...I guess.

"...In EH Jones writes that in Orthodoxy "discussions of substitutionaryatonement and propitiation are virtually absent from their publishedexplanations of salvation.

[For example it is absent from Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church]

"... the notion that redemption should be rigidly interpreted in oneparticular way is itself foreign to early Christian thought: "The sevenecumenical councils avoided defining salvation through any [one model]alone. No universal Christian consensus demands that one view of salvationincludes or excludes all others" .

J.N.D. Kelly further explains:

"Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifyingthought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories,however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutuallyincompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same greattruth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due tothe different Biblical images from which they started, and there is nological reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded ascomplimentary".

And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "Whileinsisting in this way upon the unity of Christ's saving economy, theOrthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory ofatonement. The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a richvariety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These modelsare not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced bythe others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom,victory and participation" ..."